whatsapp_get_community

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get community info' without mentioning that the operation is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or what fields are returned. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded. While it is not verbose, it could benefit from slightly more detail (e.g., scope of 'info'). Nevertheless, it avoids wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and a single required parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'community info' includes, error handling, or how it differs from retrieving a community via other means. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently use the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage via parameter description ('Community JID'), so the schema already defines the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get community info.' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (community info), distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like `whatsapp_get_community_invite_link` or `whatsapp_get_community_participants`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `whatsapp_list_communities` for all communities, or `whatsapp_get_community_participants` for participants). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.